Very true, but it wasn't mentioned so I doubt it was used. Besides, even with a 24 STR a medium load would be 234 lbs, which is around where I would put a human fighter in full plate with a sheild, weapons, and gear.

Well, it was a gnome sorcerer with almost no equipment due to low strength and the monk still had bull strength on him. We checked the figures.

Very true, but it wasn't mentioned so I doubt it was used. Besides, even with a 24 STR a medium load would be 234 lbs, which is around where I would put a human fighter in full plate with a sheild, weapons, and gear.

Well, it was a gnome sorcerer with almost no equipment due to low strength and the monk still had bull strength on him. We checked the figures.

So fair to say a fairly exceptional set of circumstances, then, and not a tactic that every party could use regularly.

I do love the monk's speed, so I'll speak up for it. +10 at 3, +20 at 6 (and as we know, it keeps going up). Your speed quickly changes for the better, and from leve 3-6, this at a level where affording a steady back up of haste potions is difficult, costly or impossible (depending on the setting). No one can steal their speed away, and they don't need to drink a potion and burn an action to get it. Later, they get more speed than haste can give. What a rush.

I do love the monk's speed, so I'll speak up for it. +10 at 3, +20 at 6 (and as we know, it keeps going up). Your speed quickly changes for the better, and from leve 3-6, this at a level where affording a steady back up of haste potions is difficult, costly or impossible (depending on the setting). No one can steal their speed away, and they don't need to drink a potion and burn an action to get it. Later, they get more speed than haste can give. What a rush.

Quite an ability they get there.

Once you can get to a speed of 40 you are mostly good enough, and even a speed of 40 is rarely needed in the game. I like being fast too, but it never gets used enough for me to say it is a contributing factor. I may run an entire campaign where it never matters, and that goes for a lot of circumstantial situations the monk is supposed to contribute to. On top of that the situation is normally also able to be handled by another class with some resource expenditure. Yeah the monk might be able to do it for free, but if it the situation rarely comes up then I doubt that it justifies taking a class for it, if it can be handled anyway.

I may run an entire campaign where it never matters, and that goes for a lot of circumstantial situations the monk is supposed to contribute to.

That pretty much sums up the monk class. All other classes I can think of have situational abilities that make them excellent, on top of a baseline that they can resort to when all else fails. Druid not in a wilderness? Still got wildshape, spells and a companion. Paladin not fighting evil? Still got a good weapon and healing power. Monk not able to use maneuvers or hit lower-AC targets? Still got...nothin' except the ability to run away.

My only concern with the "Arcane Pool" answer is that it isn't really an answer.

At lower levels, you can stack up your bonuses with purchased magic and be ahead of the curve, but eventually it levels out. You still can't take any weapon above a +5(+10), after all.

You're getting the illusion of a better attack bonus, but really you're getting the same attack bonus everyone else can get, just earlier.
I'm not saying this is bad - it's very good! But eventually, when everyone else has their +5 weapon too, you're no longer ahead of the curve, and what used to be your answer to hit is now just extra damage via special weapon abilities (flaming, keen, etc.)

here is where you are wrong.

+3 strength(or dex if you finesse) +0 bab +arcane pool is the same as a fighter with a 3 strength at level 1.

same character at level 4 after he gets his first magus arcana and spell recall:

+3 strength, +3 bab +1 arcane pool +1 magic weapon + int to hit (Arcane Accuracy) + 3 shocking grasp = +8 on a normal hit or +15 when he needs it, much better then a fighter. he can have a second attack at 6/13.

you cant really compare +6 vs +13. yes a magus will not have it for every attack, but when that big baddy pops out he will be better then the fighter at every level by spending resources. keep in mind those resources are not necessary for fodder troops.

It is passable at best, they have 4 skill points per level 5 if human. If they try to get more with int they'll be gimped in other areas.

With the 4 skill points they can get stealth, perception, acrobatics, and 1 more thing maxed?

The problem is with scouting you kinda need to know what you are looking at to know if something is dangerous or not. Without the big 4 knowledge unless the monk is metagaming with the Beastiary opened, there is no way he can make a primary scout.

Now he can be a decent scout assistant but as the primary scout, no way can a monk be considered adequate for the job.

I wonder what the intended "effictiveness rate" is for all the classes. Probably too circumstantial to really pin it down.

I am not so sure, Cheapy. I think you could make a list of creatures and look at what classes can effect them, and I think your list of classes would be pretty complete. Some classes have certain monsters they are less effective against at various levels, and some they are more effective against. For example, golems are very dangerous to casters, but casters can still effect golems.

What would be more telling is taking a creature and working out how effective a given class of a given level would be against that monster given standard WBL parameters.

You are right though, in that is will be circumstantial, so I think what really counts are either flexible abilities (for example, prepared casting) or else baseline abilities that are almost always effective (like dishing out out damage).

It seems that this thread has run out of content and discussion that is interesting to me. I obviously have a different opinion about usefulness and how good the monk is. In this - and other threads - everything centers around to-hit and damage with unarmed strikes. Other arguments, e.g. about defenses, how features of the monk can be used etc., are considered unimportant.

I do not like the tone and what is implied in short, often kind of smart-ass replies, here. For example, I mention an experience to demonstrate when one of the abilities was useful. Then immediately the correctness of that experience is questioned with the remark that since I did not mention one specific item, when I was just stating the experience mind you, it is doubted that this is possible at all. Other examples:

DR is mentioned as a problem. I answer to use weapons. The next comments? They all "suck".

Monks can heal themselves. Reply? It's "useless".

Slow fall has saved my monk's life more than once. Next remark: A useless ability, everyone should just buy a ring of featherfall or the wizard just casts featherfall, and - real? - characters just take the damage and walk away.

Speed does not matter above a 40ft. Well, if you say so... I do not agree here.

Scouting is a task a monk can fulfill. Then summons are brought up as a real alternative. Well, I am just out of words for this one - a limited ressource, limited usability, difficulties in communication etc.?

And the list goes on. Seriously? This is supposed to be a discussion?

No, it is pointless. I have read the same statements, mostly by the same people, in many other threads. So by now I think it is just a permanent confirming and reconfirming of a vocal group's opinions.

The good thing that came out of it is that it made me rethink my opinion of the monk. Before I thought it was fine, could maybe have a few improvements to some abilities like tongue of the sun and the moon. Now I still think that, but unarmed strike definitely is not one of those, and neither is to-hit and damage.

So just to make my opinion clear:

Unarmed strike is fine as it is. It is not intended for real monsters, but more against the "natural" world inhabitants, like humanoids, monstrous humanoids, animals etc. Against those it is quite effective. For all others, i.e. DR, there are weapons. Or the amulet of mighty fists. And styles.
So Paizo can pretty much keep the monk the way it is, maybe clear up some language and state exceptions for flurrying with two-handed weapons where it is intended.

The defensive package of the monk is great.

The monk has some role playing options many other classes do not have that may approach his AC other defenses. For example, heavy armor cannot be worn at a ball.

I agree, very situational. But I also maintain there are 'flexible', 'solid' and 'situational' abilities.

For example, a ranger has a combination of the three:
Flexible - he has spell-casting.
Situational - he has favoured enemies against whom he is awesome, terrains that he can use.
Solid - if all else fails, he's can fight with his combat style and full BAB.

It seems that this thread has run out of content and discussion that is interesting to me. I obviously have a different opinion about usefulness and how good the monk is. In this - and other threads - everything centers around to-hit and damage with unarmed strikes. Other arguments, e.g. about defenses, how features of the monk can be used etc., are considered unimportant.

That's because your arguments are weak and you don't back them up with facts or figures.

Sangalor wrote:

I do not like the tone and what is implied in short, often kind of smart-ass replies, here. For example, I mention an experience to demonstrate when one of the abilities was useful. Then immediately the correctness of that experience is questioned with the remark that since I did not mention one specific item, when I was just stating the experience mind you, it is doubted that this is possible at all.

I'm sorry if you feel that we belittle your experiences, but no-one has denied that in certain situations monks can shine. The problem is that in many situations - far too many - monks struggle to function at all. You don't address these problems.

Sangalor wrote:

Other examples:

DR is mentioned as a problem. I answer to use weapons. The next comments? They all "suck".

That's because they do. A typical monk weapon is 1d6 20/x2, which is awful. Weapons are mechanically as good as their threat range and crit multiplier, that's how the system works, like it or not. The only half-way decent weapon is the temple sword, at 1d8 19-20/x2 it's as good as a longsword and you need a strength-based monk to make good use of one.

Please, tell my I am wrong, find me a decent monk weapon that can compare to a rapier or falchion or kukri!

Sangalor wrote:

Monks can heal themselves. Reply? It's "useless".

That's because it is. At 8th level, say, a monk with 18 Wis will have a ki-pool of 8 points. Given that he is relying on this to supply extra offence/defence/speed, taking a standard action to spend a quarter of it healing 8hp when he could drink a potion for potentially more healing is just plain bad resource management. Sure, it can have a use if the spells and channels are all used up and you expect no more encounters in the day, but I can't see it being used often enough to justify it's existence.

If you disagree, prove me wrong! Show me how, when and where it will be regularly useful.

Sangalor wrote:

Slow fall has saved my monk's life more than once. Next remark: A useless ability, everyone should just buy a ring of featherfall or the wizard just casts featherfall, and - real? - characters just take the damage and walk away.

Slow fall has it's uses, but it's a situational ability. My monk, at 11th level, has used it all of twice - once deliberately, once on a failed save. Is that often enough to justify it being such a 'major' ability? It could be much better, do more, and still be underpowered.

You have given your anecdotes, we've given ours. Why are ours less valid than yours?

Sangalor wrote:

Speed does not matter above a 40ft. Well, if you say so... I do not agree here.

Speed is good and useful in certain circumstances, no-one has denied this. But really, it's something that regularly everyone in the party gets buffed to, and it's of limited usefulness. In some situations it is handy, on others it isn't, almost never is it vital.

Sangalor wrote:

Scouting is a task a monk can fulfill. Then summons are brought up as a real alternative. Well, I am just out of words for this one - a limited ressource, limited usability, difficulties in communication etc.?

I agree monks can do scouting - but they are not the best at it, and it takes an investment in yet another attribute to pull it off properly. I've placed the points clearly as to why I think so. By all means, show me I am wrong or demonstrate it by figures or logic.

Sangalor wrote:

And the list goes on. Seriously? This is supposed to be a discussion?

For a discussion you have to engage in the debate, not just make assertions and quote a few anecdotes without anything to back them up and then just expect people to agree with you.

Sangalor wrote:

No, it is pointless. I have read the same statements, mostly by the same people, in many other threads. So by now I think it is just a permanent confirming and reconfirming of a vocal group's opinions.

If you feel they are so wrong, give us the beef and prove it. We hear the same arguments that there is nothing wrong with the monk again and again. Again and again, we present facts, figures, and anecdotes of our own experiences playing monks to back up our positions. Again and again, these people either stop, think and agree, or else have a huff and quit the thread.

Sangalor wrote:

The good thing that came out of it is that it made me rethink my opinion of the monk. Before I thought it was fine, could maybe have a few improvements to some abilities like tongue of the sun and the moon. Now I still think that, but unarmed strike definitely is not one of those, and neither is to-hit and damage.

These things are easily calculated mechanically. Show us the proof, because every set of numbers I have crunched says otherwise.

Sangalor wrote:

So just to make my opinion clear:

Unarmed strike is fine as it is. It is not intended for real monsters, but more against the "natural" world inhabitants, like humanoids, monstrous humanoids, animals etc. Against those it is quite effective. For all others, i.e. DR, there are weapons. Or the amulet of mighty fists. And styles.

The big problem with this statement is that it pretty much says: "The monk isn't actually meant to fight." Because what are adventurers meant to take on? Real monsters, at the end of the day.

Monk weapons are appalling (see above) and the Amulet of Mighty Fists is overpriced and under-performs. These are mechanical, provable facts.

But if you feel the monk isn't meant to fight please be so good as to tell us what it IS meant to do, because in twelve years of playing 3.X I have yet to discover it.

Sangalor wrote:

So Paizo can pretty much keep the monk the way it is, maybe clear up some language and state exceptions for flurrying with two-handed weapons where it is intended.

Paizo's devs have said that the monk is definitely underpowered and they want to fix it, so good luck with that one.

Sangalor wrote:

The defensive package of the monk is great.

Agreed. Monks, built properly, are very good defensively.

Sangalor wrote:

The monk has some role playing options many other classes do not have that may approach his AC other defenses. For example, heavy armor cannot be worn at a ball.

No, but those options are very situational and other classes can overcome them in other ways. How often are adventurers at the ball? How often are they in the Dungeon? How much does glamoured armour cost?

Again, my 11th level monk has been in one situation where this was relevant, and even then weapons were smuggled in by the other PCs.

Sangalor wrote:

The monk is very survivable in many different situations.

Agreed. Unfortunately survivability is not the only game in town. If I take a wizard into a party and do nothing but cast defensive buffs on myself every combat, I may keep him safe but I'm not going to achieve much for the party - I'm dead-weight taking up a share of the XP and GP, and contributing nothing to earn it.

Sangalor wrote:

Ignoring the monk after a 1 attack or 1 round is metagaming.

For dumb creatures. Others will work out that the unarmed guy can't hurt them very quickly.

Sangalor wrote:

Drawing enemy fire or spells helps the party.

If you can do it. Situational, again.

Sangalor wrote:

There is too much theorycrafting and too little playtesting.

You mean you don't believe our anecdotes or play-tests?

Sangalor wrote:

So enjoy this thread, it's not one for me :-)

Clearly, because presented with evidence and witness statements you don't like the outcome but cannot argue your case.

1)Unarmed strike is fine as it is. It is not intended for real monsters, but more against the "natural" world inhabitants, like humanoids, monstrous humanoids, animals etc. Against those it is quite effective. For all others, i.e. DR, there are weapons. Or the amulet of mighty fists. And styles.
So Paizo can pretty much keep the monk the way it is, maybe clear up some language and state exceptions for flurrying with two-handed weapons where it is intended.

2)The defensive package of the monk is great.

3)The monk has some role playing options many other classes do not have that may approach his AC other defenses. For example, heavy armor cannot be worn at a ball.

4)The monk is very survivable in many different situations.

5)Ignoring the monk after a 1 attack or 1 round is metagaming.

6)Drawing enemy fire or spells helps the party.

7)There is too much theorycrafting and too little playtesting.

1)Amulet of Mighty Fists is worthless for most types of DR and progresses at an exponentially slower rate. You saying "It's fine by me" doesn't change this. Saying it is fine against humanoids is all well and good, but even this is a fallacy as many humanoids encountered after the first couple levels of play will have class levels and gear that put them in the hard to reach area for monks. They can certainly use maneuvers, but the usefulness of most maneuvers declines rapidly as you level and CMD's begin to rise at much higher rates.

2)No one has ever denied that the defensive capabilities of the monk are great. It's coupling them with a character capable of making meaningful contributions to the party that's the problem, since adequate WIS and DEX to take advantage of those capabilities pulls points away from STR, which is needed if he is to contribute in combat, or INT, which he desperately needs if you plan on having sufficient skill points to be an adequate scout.
3) Yes, the monk gets to wear his "armor" and bring his "weapons" to the ball. Too bad he doesn't have the social skills to mingle while he's there. Unless the campaign involves the monk rescuing a beautiful damsel from a mansion filled with tiny talking constructs, animated dishware and fighting a lycanthropic monster, this has limited usefulness. (I haven't run a Beauty and the Beast campaign yet, but now I want to try just to see if my players put it all together...)
4) Yes, the monk survives. For many though, Pathfinder is a cooperative game, and for those people, surviving a TPK that you didn't meaningfully contribute to preventing is not a plus.
5)In what way? If I have 6 seconds of experience wherein I see that one person is flinging bolts of burning death, one is carving ruin with a steel implement of destruction, and the third is ineffectually trying to slap-box me, I should deal with the slap-boxer first? The monk needs to be able to make himself a threat if he wants an enemies attention. If he can't do it, it's not metagaming to deal with the people who are threats first.
6) See #5
7)You are the one who has refused to actually provide any data, at all to back up your statements, relying instead on anecdotal "evidence" with no meaningful impact on the discussion at hand.

People have offered to run the math through a given scenario with you, you have declined. It is not other posters here who are unwilling to participate in meaningful discussion. Most of the people playing in this thread do play monks, have encountered the various difficulties monks run into, and have provided solid mathematical evidence backing their assertions. If you think someone is incorrect in an assertion, provide a build, lay out the scenario, and show how that's the case. Most people on this thread are more than willing to be proven wrong, the thousands of monk threads exist because no one has done it yet. Core Monks have been proven, time and again, to be the weakest class in all but an extremely narrow set of circumstances, both through "theorycraft" and extensive play.

I do love the monk's speed, so I'll speak up for it. +10 at 3, +20 at 6 (and as we know, it keeps going up). Your speed quickly changes for the better, and from leve 3-6, this at a level where affording a steady back up of haste potions is difficult, costly or impossible (depending on the setting). No one can steal their speed away, and they don't need to drink a potion and burn an action to get it. Later, they get more speed than haste can give. What a rush.

Quite an ability they get there.

Once you can get to a speed of 40 you are mostly good enough, and even a speed of 40 is rarely needed in the game. I like being fast too, but it never gets used enough for me to say it is a contributing factor. I may run an entire campaign where it never matters, and that goes for a lot of circumstantial situations the monk is supposed to contribute to. On top of that the situation is normally also able to be handled by another class with some resource expenditure. Yeah the monk might be able to do it for free, but if it the situation rarely comes up then I doubt that it justifies taking a class for it, if it can be handled anyway.

40 is good if you are in tight confines and dungeons, but the real sweet spot is 55-60. Especially useful in countryside, difficult terrain (hi, I just moved 30, halving my 60, yep). Light woods you can ninja off really quick, get behind total cover if you want to do the ranged thing, get around corners (few feats for that type of stuff too). I've played 40s before, but 60 is grande. 60 and run and you can beat most cav (which will be down to about 50 or so with a heavy rider). I found it changed the game hugely, in and out as quick as I pleased. mmmmmm good ol' Skadi the scout.

It is passable at best, they have 4 skill points per level 5 if human. If they try to get more with int they'll be gimped in other areas.

With the 4 skill points they can get stealth, perception, acrobatics, and 1 more thing maxed?

The problem is with scouting you kinda need to know what you are looking at to know if something is dangerous or not. Without the big 4 knowledge unless the monk is metagaming with the Beastiary opened, there is no way he can make a primary scout.

Now he can be a decent scout assistant but as the primary scout, no way can a monk be considered adequate for the job.

If you are creeping around as a scout, you don't need max acrobatics. Cartwheeling scouting is a bad idea. The monk will also be on no penalties from armour, shields and such, so it is all you baby. Rogues are better scouts, but without the good movement and all good saves, can have trouble escaping back to bring in the cavalry. Ninjas are also grand, but again, movement and saves.

If you are creeping around as a scout, you don't need max acrobatics. Cartwheeling scouting is a bad idea. The monk will also be on no penalties from armour, shields and such, so it is all you baby. Rogues are better scouts, but without the good movement and all good saves, can have trouble escaping back to bring in the cavalry. Ninjas are also grand, but again, movement and saves.

Agreed, again Monks aren't bad scouts. Rougue are better, but again as you pointed out they don't have the sheer defense of a monk.

But Ninja? Ninja are the bastard offspring of monks and rogues and are sheer godly scouts by proxy. You note that they suffer in speed of a monk, but they too have Ki with which to boost their movement and they can move at full movement while stealthing and while double moving across difficult terrain without having to even roll. So that Monks who moves 60 a round, blowing ki to make acrobatics checks, still only moves as fast as the Ninja while stealthing. If he want's to be stealthy, he's gonna be half as quick.

She may not have the saves, but the ninja can take talents that offset this: such as slow metabolism for poisons, evasion for reflex traps, and the ability to turn invisible at the drop of a hat if caught. The only area where they're weak is in Will defenses, but I believe there are a few rogue tricks they can take for that.

Monks are good scouts, Rogues are better scouts, but imo Ninjas can be the best scouts.

It is not unfair if those classes are restricted to the CRB for feats and other options.

This.

Yeah, I'm sure all those new classes were released in a complete vacuum, independent of all those other options they previously and simultaneously released for the other classes. You know, like granting other classes and archtypes the ability to summon things as a standard action as the Summoner does.

Darth Grall wrote:

Also I think you(Shadowdweller) missed the point of what I was saying. I'm aware there are options availible to the monk that can help them to one degree or another, be it an archtype or a special feat, but they are a band-aid on the problem that is vanilla monks.

Of course it's a band-aid. Balance always shifts when new material is released...even where it is not a deliberate marketing strategy. More options = power creep. What do you expect Paizo to do? Apologize for the game having evolved and offer a revision of the Core Rulebook (thereby making all those copies their fanbase purchased for $40 a piece obsolete)? Create a whole new edition every year?

Darth Grall wrote:

Also, if your dm only has core and APG, those new vanilla BASE CLASSES will be kicking butt compared to you, even with your new options.

Yeah, sort of like how the gunslinger is also pretty worthless if your DM doesn't accept material from Ultimate Combat. Heaven forfend any given supplement should focus on a handful of specific areas or otherwise not contain THE answer.

Balance didn't "shift" with new material, the monk was always behind the curve since the Core Rulebook was released. A few archetypes were released that were now at least somewhat competitive (Hello Zen Archer!). This didn't really help with the guy who still wants to play the "traditional" monk and have a guy who fights unarmed and throws a whole lot of punches. Unless the "tradition" is the good ol' Flurry of Misses.
The point people are making, is that the monk is flawed. There is no current fix in any book that allows you to play a monk who actually utilizes all his class abilities effectively and still has the ability to consistently land a punch. As simple a fix as allowing monks an item that gives them a bonus to hit while maintaining a minimum ki pool that scales at the same pace as other characters weapons, or even a ki power that temporarily boosts the monk's accuracy for a short period of time. The current monk either does what he's meant to do in everything but being able to land a punch, or expends his resources to get his to-hit competitive at the cost of draining his other stats and negating his normal strengths.

Monks are good scouts, Rogues are better scouts, but imo Ninjas can be the best scouts.

IMO, inquisitors are the best scouts. Plenty of skill points, good saves, wisdom synergy, assorted detection and monster identification abilities, and a host of spells to assist when something invariably goes wrong.

The saves and immunities of the monk are not to be underestimated, however - even with trapfinding, one will eventually meet a creature with abilities like scent or true seeing; or fail to notice a game-ender trap targeting Fort or Will.

Monks are good scouts, Rogues are better scouts, but imo Ninjas can be the best scouts.

IMO, inquisitors are the best scouts. Plenty of skill points, good saves, wisdom synergy, assorted detection and monster identification abilities, and a host of spells to assist when something invariably goes wrong.

The saves and immunities of the monk are not to be underestimated, however - even with trapfinding, one will eventually meet a creature with scent and true seeing or fail to notice a game-ender trap targeting Fort or Will.

That 0 level spell Sift that Inquisitors get is awesome for Scoutquisitors. I would have to agree that they are a pretty solid competition vs the ninja for the title of top scout. I think the biggest difference is that most ninja builds will have all the scouting tools in place, while Inquisitors builds can swing wildly in their usefulness in this field depending on what primary function they're built for.

sift allws you to "touch" things at 30 feet. that means you would be able to say "hey there is a pitfall there" even if illusionary wall is covering it, which normally would be undetectible without truesight or interacting with it.

It is passable at best, they have 4 skill points per level 5 if human. If they try to get more with int they'll be gimped in other areas.

With the 4 skill points they can get stealth, perception, acrobatics, and 1 more thing maxed?

The problem is with scouting you kinda need to know what you are looking at to know if something is dangerous or not. Without the big 4 knowledge unless the monk is metagaming with the Beastiary opened, there is no way he can make a primary scout.

Now he can be a decent scout assistant but as the primary scout, no way can a monk be considered adequate for the job.

If you are creeping around as a scout, you don't need max acrobatics. Cartwheeling scouting is a bad idea. The monk will also be on no penalties from armour, shields and such, so it is all you baby. Rogues are better scouts, but without the good movement and all good saves, can have trouble escaping back to bring in the cavalry. Ninjas are also grand, but again, movement and saves.

You need acrobatics to avoid AoO, every monk defender here say the monk makes the ideal flank and keeps saying how a monk can slip into flanking amidst 50 enemies. I just assumed every monk will max acrobatics here.

I know you do not need acrobatics for scouting but I just assumed that since they need it to avoid AoO this will be a no brainer skill for all monks to max out.

I do not like the tone and what is implied in short, often kind of smart-ass replies, here. For example, I mention an experience to demonstrate when one of the abilities was useful. Then immediately the correctness of that experience is questioned with the remark that since I did not mention one specific item, when I was just stating the experience mind you, it is doubted that this is possible at all. Other examples:

DR is mentioned as a problem. I answer to use weapons. The next comments? They all "suck".
Monks can heal themselves. Reply? It's "useless".
Slow fall has saved my monk's life more than once. Next remark: A useless ability, everyone should just buy a ring of featherfall or the wizard just casts featherfall, and - real? - characters just take the damage and walk away.
Speed does not matter above a 40ft. Well, if you say so... I do not agree here.
Scouting is a task a monk can fulfill. Then summons are brought up as a real alternative. Well, I am just out of words for this one - a limited ressource, limited usability, difficulties in communication etc.?

And the list goes on. Seriously? This is supposed to be a discussion?

No, it is pointless. I have read the same statements, mostly by the same people, in many other threads. So by now I think it is just a permanent confirming and reconfirming of a vocal group's opinions.

The good thing that came out of it is that it made me rethink my opinion of the monk. Before I thought it was fine, could maybe have a few improvements to some abilities like tongue of the sun and the moon. Now I still think that, but unarmed strike definitely is not one of those, and neither is to-hit and damage.

There were intelligent responses given. There are also smart-asses in almost every thread. If that deters you .......

edit:As an example of you ignoring intelligent comments we explained why the monk would be ignored. The monster can attack the monster who hurt it the most or he can attack the one that hurt it the least. If the monk is the lesser threat....
If I get punched by a grown man and his 10 year old son I won't need a second set of punches to validate who the threat is, and just to be clear the monk is not being ignored because it is the monk. It was being ignored because it was the lesser threat. You can have fighter A and fighter B, and the results would not change.

Yeah, I'm sure all those new classes were released in a complete vacuum, independent of all those other options they previously and simultaneously released for the other classes. You know, like granting other classes and archtypes the ability to summon things as a standard action as the Summoner does.

So if the class was released in the CRB it would be ok? By CRB I was assuming archetypes were not available for the purpose of this post. In short you can take a newer class and restrict it to core feats, making sure it does not even gets feats made for that class, and it is still better than a core monk.

Is the Brawling property something that takes up a "+X" bonus or just an added-on cost?

is incredible cheap. It just +1 bonus.

So why can't Brawling be placed on Bracers of Armor?

Bracers of Armor wrote:

Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table: Armor Special Qualities for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities that add a flat gp amount to their cost.

Technically Bracers of Armor are not Light Armor and the Brawling property specifically says it can only be placed on light armor.

master arminas wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Sangalor wrote:

[list]

DR is mentioned as a problem. I answer to use weapons. The next comments? They all "suck".

Fighting unarmed is one of the iconic feature of the class. You might as well say "Wear armor"

Which, ironically enough, would let you use the Brawling property to gain an untyped +2 bonus to unarmed attacks, damage, and grapple checks.

Don't remind of us that, Ninja in the Rye. It is still a bit sore around these parts.

MA

I understand, but, well it's there.

It's a bit of a cheat of the system, but I've got a Sohei Quinggong Halfling monk that wears a +1 Brawling Silken Armor, he's less MAD and it's fun to be a monk that can spend a ki point to bring some serious hurt with unarmed strikes.

Is the Brawling property something that takes up a "+X" bonus or just an added-on cost?

is incredible cheap. It just +1 bonus.

So why can't Brawling be placed on Bracers of Armor?

Bracers of Armor wrote:

Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table: Armor Special Qualities for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have at least a +1 armor bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities that add a flat gp amount to their cost.

Movement for a scout is only necessary if you are discovered; if you were discovered you weren't a good scout.

What if you need to do the work really fast?

Enhaced seed is agreat ability, the bad thing for the monk is that after moving there is no Full BAB/Flurry thing.

There's also the point that you can end up separated from the party (never split the party) when that's often a bad idea.

Speed is good but...it's just not a be-all and end-all ability.

Gignere wrote:

You need acrobatics to avoid AoO, every monk defender here say the monk makes the ideal flank and keeps saying how a monk can slip into flanking amidst 50 enemies. I just assumed every monk will max acrobatics here.

I know you do not need acrobatics for scouting but I just assumed that since they need it to avoid AoO this will be a no brainer skill for all monks to max out.

Absolutely. In fact for a monk, that Acrobatcis CAN be useful in scouting - remember high jump? Leap the chasm instead of spending time climbing around it, cross the river in a single bound rather than use the bridge that is guarded...

Or is the argument that a monk can be a scout, as long as they are prepared to give up being a monk?

There is no be-all and end-all ability, because there are many varied abilities for different tasks.

For sure take some acrobatics, but you don't need to max it out. With a great speed and good usage of it, you can cut down on the number of acrobatics checks in combat you need to make. Rogues to me seem to have to make more, unless you up their speed too. Last high speed scout char I had, he barely used acrobatics.

If you don't max it out, got some skills for other things. Yay!

"Or is the argument that a monk can be a scout, as long as they are prepared to give up being a monk?"

Nothing of the sort, a monk can be both a scout and a monk. Also in an odd similarity to the rogue, if a high initiative monk stealths up, a good hit followed by a flurry really bludgeons a sentry to death. Then rub the blood off your hands and sneak away.

There is no be-all and end-all ability, because there are many varied abilities for different tasks.

For sure take some acrobatics, but you don't need to max it out. With a great speed and good usage of it, you can cut down on the number of acrobatics checks in combat you need to make. Rogues to me seem to have to make more, unless you up their speed too. Last high speed scout char I had, he barely used acrobatics.

If you don't max it out, got some skills for other things. Yay!

"Or is the argument that a monk can be a scout, as long as they are prepared to give up being a monk?"

Nothing of the sort, a monk can be both a scout and a monk. Also in an odd similarity to the rogue, if a high initiative monk stealths up, a good hit followed by a flurry really bludgeons a sentry to death. Then rub the blood off your hands and sneak away.

What about disarming traps, knowing what he is looking at (knowledge skills), and such? It's fine to say you don't need maxed out Acrobatics, but you need skills in these other areas and I really do not find that the monk has enough points without an intelligence boost.

The monk can make a decent scout, but he doesn't make an excellent scout. I say this from running a monk as a scout for some time.

Movement for a scout is only necessary if you are discovered; if you were discovered you weren't a good scout.

What if you need to do the work really fast?

Enhaced seed is agreat ability, the bad thing for the monk is that after moving there is no Full BAB/Flurry thing.

There's also the point that you can end up separated from the party (never split the party) when that's often a bad idea.

Speed is good but...it's just not a be-all and end-all ability.

Sorry but you say other classes are better scouts and when someone argue taht speed can help in souting then you say scouting is not that good idea.

I said speed was good but not a be-all and end-all. Above I was pointing out the general benefits and issues with speed, not just with regard to scouting. It can help in a some situations, but it does not get the monk past their basic problem of insufficient skill ranks to do the scouting role without investing a lot in intelligence.

The ranger, inquisitor and rogue all make better scouts in many ways. Monks can scout, they just aren't the best class for it.